Re: Would you recommend installing ULAV's "Advanced Local Scanning"?

Hello,

I think that setting is based on 'requirements' of your own use.

For example, if I will try to use F-Secure ULAV further (I do not able to use F-Secure ULAV - because there are some troubles for normal work under my systems) - I do leave 'offline engine' (advanced local scanning) is off.

Thus, I will use F-Secure ULAV as cloud-based solution (with potential F-Secure own small local 'offline' basic engine - if system will be with disabled network). I did not try to research it - but I think that detection rate is not enough good for daily (safe) use; while it should be OK for common normal system use. With meanings that DeepGuard may be more 'strict' and visible than with advanced local scanning engine.

And I will do so - just because it is interesting to look how F-Secure ULAV works with such configuration.

Because otherwise (with enabled "Advanced Local Scanning") it is practically normal F-Secure SAFE solution or FS Protection (SAFE beta). For except, that FS Protection with much more settings and more stable/active.

But even F-Secure ULAV with some other differences compared to FS Protection too; but I'm not sure if it is can be critical for choice.

In general, I would recommend install/enable ULAV's Advanced Local Scanning for being with potentially higher count of detection rate. While cloud's design (as it was before) will be invisible already.

Also, I think that current stable and 'mainstream' beta as FS Protection with pretty cloud-design too. And, basically, it should be much more interesting solution than F-Secure ULAV with its current view.

(not sure about wordings, but yes) "Advanced Local Scanning" and "Aquarius" cores are based on noted licensed engine (with some internal F-Secure's tweaks; and probably with differences with noted company's own core which is based on such engine).

But I'm also only F-Secure user (their home solutions). So, it is only my own unofficial feelings and suggestions.

Re: Would you recommend installing ULAV's "Advanced Local Scanning"?

Hello,

I think that setting is based on 'requirements' of your own use.

For example, if I will try to use F-Secure ULAV further (I do not able to use F-Secure ULAV - because there are some troubles for normal work under my systems) - I do leave 'offline engine' (advanced local scanning) is off.

Thus, I will use F-Secure ULAV as cloud-based solution (with potential F-Secure own small local 'offline' basic engine - if system will be with disabled network). I did not try to research it - but I think that detection rate is not enough good for daily (safe) use; while it should be OK for common normal system use. With meanings that DeepGuard may be more 'strict' and visible than with advanced local scanning engine.

And I will do so - just because it is interesting to look how F-Secure ULAV works with such configuration.

Because otherwise (with enabled "Advanced Local Scanning") it is practically normal F-Secure SAFE solution or FS Protection (SAFE beta). For except, that FS Protection with much more settings and more stable/active.

But even F-Secure ULAV with some other differences compared to FS Protection too; but I'm not sure if it is can be critical for choice.

In general, I would recommend install/enable ULAV's Advanced Local Scanning for being with potentially higher count of detection rate. While cloud's design (as it was before) will be invisible already.

Also, I think that current stable and 'mainstream' beta as FS Protection with pretty cloud-design too. And, basically, it should be much more interesting solution than F-Secure ULAV with its current view.

(not sure about wordings, but yes) "Advanced Local Scanning" and "Aquarius" cores are based on noted licensed engine (with some internal F-Secure's tweaks; and probably with differences with noted company's own core which is based on such engine).

But I'm also only F-Secure user (their home solutions). So, it is only my own unofficial feelings and suggestions.

Re: Would you recommend installing ULAV's "Advanced Local Scanning"?

For example, if I will try to use F-Secure ULAV further (I do not able to use F-Secure ULAV - because there are some troubles for normal work under my systems) - I do leave 'offline engine' (advanced local scanning) is off.

Thus, I will use F-Secure ULAV as cloud-based solution (with potential F-Secure own small local 'offline' basic engine - if system will be with disabled network). I did not try to research it - but I think that detection rate is not enough good for daily (safe) use; while it should be OK for common normal system use. With meanings that DeepGuard may be more 'strict' and visible than with advanced local scanning engine.

And I will do so - just because it is interesting to look how F-Secure ULAV works with such configuration.

Because otherwise (with enabled "Advanced Local Scanning") it is practically normal F-Secure SAFE solution or FS Protection (SAFE beta). For except, that FS Protection with much more settings and more stable/active.

But even F-Secure ULAV with some other differences compared to FS Protection too; but I'm not sure if it is can be critical for choice.

In general, I would recommend install/enable ULAV's Advanced Local Scanning for being with potentially higher count of detection rate. While cloud's design (as it was before) will be invisible already.

Also, I think that current stable and 'mainstream' beta as FS Protection with pretty cloud-design too. And, basically, it should be much more interesting solution than F-Secure ULAV with its current view.

(not sure about wordings, but yes) "Advanced Local Scanning" and "Aquarius" cores are based on noted licensed engine (with some internal F-Secure's tweaks; and probably with differences with noted company's own core which is based on such engine).

But I'm also only F-Secure user (their home solutions). So, it is only my own unofficial feelings and suggestions.

Thanks!

Hey,

interestingly enough I guess that's one major difference between the two: you can't unselect local scanning (Aquarius) in regular F-Secure products. It would be really nice if you could, the updates cause a serious amount of CPU and disk usage.